scotroutes - Member
retro83 - you forgot about this bitBut it's OK - coz that's far, far away....
Okay, what's your point?
What richpip said "If your community doesn't generate electricity then you pay lots extra (to show your appreciation to those that do) or even better you can't have any"
That'll learn ya!
This is the most singletrack thread ever. Well nearly, it still needs someone who powers their own house by woodburner.
cinnamon_girl - Member
Just to be clear - I don't actually live in the area.
So you're outraged on their behalf?
I object to its location right beside the bridleway where distant views of the South Downs can be enjoyed.
So you know absolutely for certain that this array will be on the side of the bridleway that overlooks the view?
Sounds highly unlikely to me, the array has to be on the flat.
It doesn't need to be put there and there are other less intrusive locations.
So you don't actually live in the area, but you know it intimately enough to be able to say that it doesn't have to be put in that location, and you know better ones? Surely there's a real change of career opportunity right there; being able to magically produce the perfect location for solar arrays that fulfil all the requirements for optimum power efficiency and still not cause anybody to object to those locations.
Hoping that there will be a protest group that I can [s]join[/s] go and cause a nuisance with.
I can see all the objections now; blot on the landscape, loss of farming land, yada yada yada...
Unless you're a hang-glider or paraglider pilot it's highly unlikely you'll be able to see it from ground level, as hedges are planted around them, if not already there, which is more often the case, they're dark blue, so hardly going to draw the eye, unlike light coloured barn roofs, industrial units, high-voltage substations, pylons, etc.
They're raised around a metre to a metre and a half off the ground, on thin tube frameworks, allowing the entire area underneath to be used for grazing sheep, so hardly detrimental to farming. Compared to half a dozen wind turbines, 200' or so tall, solar arrays are virtually invisible, and work as long as there's daylight, which is a lot longer than most windfarms produce power. There's a windfarm at Watchfield, on the way from Swindon to Oxford, which can easily be seen from Barbary Castle. There's a solar farm near Hullavington, on the way to Malmesbury, and from Morgan's Hill nature reserve, above Calne, you can actually see further than Malmesbury, but you cannot see the solar farm. You can see Lyneham airfield, Wroughton airfield, Kemble airfield, Portemarsh Industrial Estate outside of Calne, old airfield buildings at Yatesbury, barns, pylons, and God knows what else, but no solar farm.
I know it's there, I could just, and only just, see the frameworks through the hedge along the main road. It's the only way you could know it's there, though.
There are far greater things to worry about, c_g, than solar farms which hardly anyone will actually be able to see; I respectfully suggest that you address your time and efforts to those. How about doing something about tracking down the assholes who dump hundreds of tons of rubbish, often harmful, in beauty spots, on rights of way, etc, as shown on Country File tonight?
Or would that be too difficult, unlike standing around waving a placard for the media?
Both wind and solar do nothing to meet peak demand on calm days in winter. They are therefore irrelevant from the point of view of preventing blackouts as coal and older nuclear plants get closed down in the next few years.
As shown below. The peak demand in 2012 was in 12th December (dashed line) when wind was near zero and solar would have been near zero.
[img] 
[/img]
http://euanmearns.com/electricity-supply-and-demand-for-beginners/
Ok, so we know that solar and wind are not on all the time. But will they actually save coal from being burned *in UK power generation*?
I suspect so, because whilst coal power stations can't easily be turned off, surely they can be 'turned down' quite a bit?
Edit - looking at irc's graph that would appear to be the case.
That's exactly the point molgrips. You're right and displacing coal and inefficient Gas is good.
What that does mean though is that no body is currently rushing to spend a few billion to build a new, efficient Gas CCGT because ultimately they're not going to run as much or as often as they could - making a pretty poor, or extended return on investment.
Re the data above [Sadly] in my line of work I tend to keep an eye on what power is coming from what source.
Here's some real time data (updated every 5 minutes) - http://www.ukenergywatch.org/Electricity/Realtime
As others have already said above we genuinely need a mix of wind, solar, nuclear, gas, interconnectors etc. the recent spate of political pantomimes will just jeopardise further investment once again. Pretty idiotic IMO.
Why not this?
[url= http://www.atlantisresourcescorporation.com/marine-power/technology-comparison.html ]Tidal Comparision[/url]
Unless you're a seal or dolphin, you're unlikely to be effected. And it's predictable.
are there any real working marine turbine farms yet? There is a reason why not.
Thorium MOX. Get a move on UK!
slowoldgit - Member
I don't know about anyone else, but I use more electricity in winter, you know, the long nights and cloudy or foggy days.
You have heard of business you know like factories and offices and things like hospitals etc that work during the day time. They might actually be a big user of electricity.
You have heard of business you know like factories and offices and things like hospitals etc that work during the day time. They might actually be a big user of electricity.
But daily demand peaks at 6pm (as per daily demand graph at link) and during the winter solar is zero at peak demand.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
But daily demand peaks at 6pm (as per daily demand graph at link) and during the winter solar is zero at peak demand.
So on that logic it's only worth pursuing sources of electricity that are good at 6pm? No single source of power is the answer, but lots in unison might be.
I had a curry last night, could the by product of that delicious meal not be used? There was certainly some power in that last trump, wind and gas fired. What's not to like.
Don't think I can hold it till 6pm though.
I like the idea of the solar farm and would happily have one here with wind turbines on. When riding in wales i find the turbines add to the views and aren't a nasty blot on the landscape.
Shame we don't have the weather for a proper solar plant.
[img] 
[/img]
just need to find a more efficient way of storing the energy harnessed during the day...... battery tech needs to catch up 😀
personally i find your house a blot on the landscape , its next to a really nice road i know.
haha - harry looks like something from the GIjoe cartoons when i was young. out in texas.
just need to find a more efficient way of storing the energy harnessed during the day...... battery tech needs to catch up
Solar thermal plants (like the one in the above photo) can store the energy using molten salt technology. Sun bounces off mirrors into a collector that heats up salt to a molten state. Molten salt is stored and used to generate steam when the demand is high. Steam is used to generate electricity the same was as in coal, gas, nuclear.
This is being built right now to supply Las Vegas and will go on line next year. Desert to power plant in 2 years without any significant pollution. Not bad eh?
Shame they can't build them here, but they are going up in Spain, North Africa, South Africa, South America and North America right now.
[img] 
[/img]
UK ones are nowhere near the capacity but I'd rather see a bit of wind or solar than something that burns its way through our dwindling fossil fuel reserves. If you don't want one in your back garden but still want to be able to turn the lights on then tough ****. I'm sure the residents of Ferrybridge, Cottham, Runcorn etc don't want their power stations either.
I was speaking to an engineer who works for a major power cable manufacturer, they are developing technology that will allow the efficient transfer of energy over huge distances.
I know he is obviously biased but he seemed to think that a lot of the Globes energy problems could be resolved by the transfer of energy across a number of time zones, so that a power station would be exporting it's energy 24/7 to areas of peak demand. Seemed pretty logical to me.
Current renewable technology is not good enough. At the moment it is just being used by OEM's and operators to milk subsidies out of gullible politicians to make huge amounts of money for investors. Especially offshore wind!
Why molten salt btw? Presumably high melting point and high heat capacity?
I think reactionary backlash against renewable energy sources is one the most irritating traits of the bored pseudo-traditionalist malcontent..
It makes me wanna pick 'em up by the neck and shake 'em
The argument that it's making a rich landowner richer is just perverse twaddle as well.. are other energy suppliers usually simple common folk, struggling to get by on minimum wage..?
Most people are happy to admire country houses and castles as a lovely part of the countryside. They were built by very rich landowners, but you don't hear people complaining about that.
We have bluebells, its so beautiful, horses wah wah wah. What's your recommendation? Build it all up north in the desolate landscape?
are other energy suppliers usually simple common folk
No. Obviously not. In fact they are frequently the same Companies.
I think the supporters of current renewable technologies, who want to invest billions into flawed systems, are just trying to make themselves feel better about living a lifestyle that consumes vast amounts of energy without actually addressing the problem.
It makes me wanna pick 'em up by the neck and shake 'em.
I have seen first hand how much resource and energy is required to install offshore wind and the vast majority of the current windfarms will not generate as much energy in their operational life that it took to build them. How can that make sense?
Most people are happy to admire country houses and castles as a lovely part of the countryside. They were built by very rich landowners, but you don't hear people complaining about that.
And complain about damage done by mountain bikes in places criss crossed roads and motorways.
"Why molten salt btw? Presumably high melting point and high heat capacity? "
complete stab in the dark here - but probably your points and the fact its pretty common around LA ?
Winston. Most supporters of renewables know that they are currently not a complete solution to the problem. But it's better than nothing. We may not yet be in a position to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels (well, we could be, but that's another issue) but we might as well reduce it - don't you think?
the vast majority of the current windfarms will not generate as much energy in their operational life that it took to build them.
That's going to need backing up.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8766481/the-great-british-wind-scam/
this is more of an issue than the input / output situation
wind was the governments answer to sticky plaster the C02 emissions is must by law reduce over the coming years.
i have relitives that work for SSE and they have said something similar to winston - to the extent that no new wind projects were being considered by SSE.(note that was at Xmas last year so their stance like any companies may have changed in the last 11 months ;))
That's going to need backing up.
A project I was involved in was based around the windfarm having a 25 year operational life. It would pay for itself after 23 year's with subsidy. That also didn't reflect the realistic down times due to the frequent failure of the the generators themselves. Without the subsidy it was not viable.
Onshore wind is better because of the massively reduced installation and maintenance costs.
A typical offshore turbine is 5 - 6 mw. The base is made of large quantities of steel and/or concrete, the blades are carbon fibre and the whole lot has a huge CO2 footprint in its manufacture and transport. All this to put a relatively small generator in place that does not run 24/7.
Maintenance costs are massive and if you think cars use a lot of fuel have a look at the fuel consumption of even the small crew boats used to access the turbines. Never mind the fuel used by the installation vessels.
You can try and get a straight answer out of the operators but they will not give it.
Why molten salt btw?
Dunno for sure but I'm guessing it has the correct thermal properties, is easy to pump around the system and doesn't poison the place if it leaks.
Backing up with actual peer review science rather than anecdote
If it means less wind turbines, them I'm all for solar PV farms.
A typical offshore turbine is 5 - 6 mw. The base is made of large quantities of steel and/or concrete, the blades are carbon fibre and the whole lot has a huge CO2 footprint in its manufacture and transport.
Compared with the construction and running of a coal plant?
actual peer review science
The problem is that this more a political issue than a science or engineering one.
Each side of the argument has their own political points to score.
[url= http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/wind-energy-is-extraordinarily-expensive-and-inefficient/ ]Wind power costs[/url]
However, nobody can deny that offshore wind is eye watering expensive.
[url= http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/12/29/expensive-offshore-wind-in-need-of-customers/ ]Cost comparison[/url]
only thing i like about offshore wind is that its pissing trump off.
Compared with the construction and running of a coal plant?
Yes. The cranes, pile drivers, drills, etc do not have to float. They are on wheels and are relatively easily moved.
None of the construction team on land have to operate underwater wearing restrictive PPE to perform simple tasks. These team members do not require a support vessel costing ££££ to allow 1 or 2 people to perform construction work.
The building site doesn't regularly become an incredibly hostile environment that wants to destroy your machinery and drown your team.
All on site personnel require significant, expensive, additional training just to be able work on site.
I could go on and on but anyone who understands the offshore construction environment would understand the huge cost and resource required to operate there.
Winston, you're right, an individual offshore turbine will be about 5MW but the number that are being manufactured provide tangible economies of scale.
the company I work for (RWE npower) doesn't build turbines one at a time. We have offshore installations that are 500MW -700MW. The development at Dogger Bank is well over 2000MW - considerably bigger than the UKs largest nuke and with output efficiencies that compare very well to other conventional generators.
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/194914/rwe-innogy/sites/production-data-live/
The development at Dogger Bank is well over 2000MW
This is still just a proposal.
The logistical and engineering issues for the site are huge. All of the current projects are within 20' of the coast which means that maintenance personnel can be based shoreside and be transferred by boat. Not the case with Dogger Bank.
With offshore oil and gas the construction was viable because of the revenue generated by even a single oil platform is massive. This is just not the case for offshore wind.
Solar power farms - NIMBY - I live in Scotland 😉
At first the number of windfarms that sprung up round me felt wrong, now 10 years later I don't pay them any attention, unlike Grangemouth which when flaring, lights up the sky round here like Mordor from LotR and I cant actully see the plant, its 10-12 miles away. Same goes for The powerstations along the East Lothian coast line, loom large and look grim. Although the wind farms have a significant carbon cost due to their construction which I am led to believe they will never pay back.
Home generation on roofs and in gardens this what I hope for.
Can they not put turbines on floating platforms then sink them when out at sea?
Both wind and solar do nothing to meet peak demand on calm days in winter.
You'd best tell the people building the things in case they don't realise that.
Can they not put turbines on floating platforms then sink them when out at sea?
Is this serious?
Molgrips - get yourself up to Aberdeen, you obviously have missed your calling. With Offshore concepts like that you will be a millionaire in a week.
I think a lot of people are missing the point that peak oil has already happened
fossil fuels (as well as damaging our planet) are only going to get more expensive
the price of oil is only going to go up and up and as far as I can see that only leads to greater instability in oil producing countries, feeding back into prices.......
OP's nimbyism aside there are worse things to find appearing on your local ride
[img] 
[/img]
